Age limits for applications

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also what about actually when using it after you lie about you age? Is that part actually even a sin?
 
Last edited:
I think I’d take note out loud that if she would lie to Instagram to get what she wants, she would lie to you. She would have a really important reason for her lie when you caught her at it, though. Or she could tell you why you were being unreasonable in your expectations.

It took me a long time to realize this about people, but it is true. Those who lie to others will lie to you, too–not about everything but for just about the same reasons as they lie to others. If they lie to others about how nice they look, don’t ask for their opinion on how you look. The answer won’t be worth much. If they lie to others about why they failed to be on time or the like…well, you get the picture. In the case of your sister, I wouldn’t expect her to take your terms for permission to do something very seriously.
michael-kaw said:
Also what about actually when using it after you lie about you age? Is that part actually even a sin?
Click to expand...
What would you say if she was doing something she needed your permission to do, permission she got by lying to you in order to get it? Of course it is wrong to do that!! Your policy is that only people who meet the terms you have for permission get the permission. She would be violating your policies every time she did what she had falsely obtained permission to do.

Likewise, she is lying to and violating the policies of the service provider every time she uses a service under false pretenses.

And yes, violating policies that are not arbitary is even worse. You are thwarting someone else trying to do their duty to protect you from harm.
 
Last edited:
Peoplel do it here all the time.
The problem lies (no pun intended) with people who have little catechesis quoting documents, the GIRM and such when they really have not studied sufficiently to properly interpret such.
Underage people are of course welcome, but there is something about interacting online with adults…Safe Environment issues, you know.
Teens should not be giving annulment advice, for example.
There’s a lot of questions here, for example, that I’d say 80% of the people are not qualified to answer.
 
Which is why there’s that big blue banner at the bottom of the screen
 
I know, but it really doesn’t help. It’s just a disclaimer.
 
So–Terms of service are funny. They make a statement that you must be at least 13 to use their product but in American law no one under 18 can make any sort of binding legal or contractual agreement.

Asking if a user is over 18 is fine, because anyone over 18 can legally agree to TOS. But 13-17 year olds–who are “allowed” to use a product can’t actually legally agree to TOS anyway.

The 13 and older rule comes from legislation that binds the company not to allow those 12 and under to use their products.

I do not think it is right for a company to imply legal consequences and legitimate contracts on those 13-17. That is wrong on them. However, two wrongs don’t equal a right. Those under 13 need to stay off.

THAT SAID

You are her brother, not her parent. Tell your parents and leave your sister alone. This is not a topic morally or otherwise, you should be approaching with her.
 
No, it’s not a grave matter. Websites have no business knowing your real age. (that’s my opinion.)
 
Last edited:
BridgetN said:
Websites have no business knowing your real age.
Click to expand...
Actually, they do. At least in America, it’s illegal for most websites to have users 12 and under without express parental permission or even direct observation.

They shouldn’t have your “real” birthdate–that I can agree to. But they do have a right (and a need) legally to ensure that you are above 13 to meet laws and really above 18 to make certain purchasing decisions.
 
Yeah, that makes sense.
I still don’t know what the morality of lying about your age is though, you should ask a priest.
 
BridgetN said:
Yeah, that makes sense.
I still don’t know what the morality of lying about your age is though, you should ask a priest.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I do not think that it would be the sin of the person who is between 1-12. That is clearly a parental negligence situation, and it would be the fault of the parent for not supervising their child properly. (whether by watching them or by digital means). Parents should be aware of the laws surrounding the internet and not default to the internet as a babysitter enabling their children to lie.

For those 13-17 I think the matter is a bit “grayer” because they have more legal rights to be on the internet (though as I mentioned before, no real legal rights when it comes to TOS)
 
Tulitas said:
Peoplel do it here all the time.

The problem lies (no pun intended) with people who have little catechesis quoting documents, the GIRM and such when they really have not studied sufficiently to properly interpret such.

Underage people are of course welcome, but there is something about interacting online with adults…Safe Environment issues, you know.

Teens should not be giving annulment advice, for example.

There’s a lot of questions here, for example, that I’d say 80% of the people are not qualified to answer.
Click to expand...
Free advice is worth what you pay for it, though. I don’t think many are literally saying they are canon lawyers when they’re not.
 
Last edited:
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
Honestly, I do not think that it would be the sin of the person who is between 1-12. That is clearly a parental negligence situation
Click to expand...
Unless the parental negligence was in teaching their children that is OK to lie to online social media providers, a child old enough to make their first confession knows it is wrong to lie.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Honestly, I do not think that it would be the sin of the person who is between 1-12. That is clearly a parental negligence situation
Click to expand...
Unless the parental negligence was in teaching their children that is OK to lie to online social media providers, a child old enough to make their first confession knows it is wrong to lie.
Click to expand...
Children under 12 need to be physically or digitally supervised online, period. They should not be given the opportunity to lie at all because they should not be left unattended, or if unattended should have software that prohibits free browsing of the web.

Yes, they should know lying is wrong and lying would be a sin, but children are still children and should not be expected to do the right thing in situations that are far above their maturity level. You don’t put a child in an amusement park and let them decide for themselves if they are “this tall” to ride the ride.
 
Last edited:
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
Children under 12 need to be physically or digitally supervised online, period. They should not be given the opportunity to lie at all because they should not be left unattended, or if unattended should have software that prohibits free browsing of the web.

Yes, they should know lying is wrong and lying would be a sin, but children are still children and should not be expected to do the right thing in situations that are far above their maturity level. You don’t put a child in an amusement park and let them decide for themselves if they are “this tall” to ride the ride.
Click to expand...
Thank you…I did not mean to imply that children should be allowed on the internet without adequate supervision!

No, I mean that a child between about 7 and 12 is certainly culpable for lying when the child certainly knows that she is lying. Maybe it is the parent’s fault that she is getting away with it, but she can take the blame for deciding to do it.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Thank you…I did not mean to imply that children should be allowed on the internet without adequate supervision!

No, I mean that a child between about 7 and 12 is certainly culpable for lying when the child certainly knows that she is lying. Maybe it is the parent’s fault that she is getting away with it, but she can take the blame for deciding to do it.
Click to expand...
It’s more like it’s a major sin for allowing a child to be in a very dangerous place for them. We would not allow a child to be in a machine shop. The child could lie, but the parents would be culpable for any harm that came to them or that they caused.

The lie on the part of the child 7-12 has reduced culpability to the point, I’d argue, that it’s probably not sinful because they are put in a situation that they should NEVER be in. We tend to see computers/internet as rather innocous but it’s really not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top